A Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Exp Psychol Gen. Author manuscript

On the 1st screen, participants were instructed to indicate with a "yes"/"no" button press whether or not they recognized every city from prior to the experiment, just as was done in Ough extra complicated relationships are feasible, as observed above with GCs. Experiment 1. Sample size was decreased relative to Experiment 1 because all subjects received precisely the same task order (recognition ahead of inference) and EEG recording was not incorporated. All participants had been undergraduate students getting course credit from the University of Colorado. All participants have been informed concerning the procedure and gave their written consent just before participating. Materials and Procedure--Each participant performed two computerized tasks equivalent to those in Experiment 1: a city/country recognition test initial plus a population inference process second. Task order was not counterbalanced due to the fact outcomes from Experiment 1 yielded no considerable effects of task order, and we wished to receive the purest measures of preexperimental memory as you possibly can throughout the recognition test. Prior to starting, each and every participant completed an about 3-min practice session for each tasks, utilizing nonexperimental stimuli. For the recognition test, participants viewed exactly the same 100 U.S.A Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Exp Psychol Gen. Author manuscript; accessible in PMC 2015 December 01.Schwikert and CurranPageinform our interpretation of ERP findings from Experiment 1, and give greater insight as to which memory processes are contributing to choices.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptMethod Participants--Thirty-four new participants (11 female) ranging in age from 18 to 23 have been recruited to partake inside the study.A Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptJ Exp Psychol Gen. Author manuscript; out there in PMC 2015 December 01.Schwikert and CurranPageinform our interpretation of ERP findings from Experiment 1, and give higher insight as to which memory processes are contributing to decisions.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptMethod Participants--Thirty-four new participants (11 female) ranging in age from 18 to 23 had been recruited to partake inside the study. Sample size was decreased relative to Experiment 1 since all subjects received precisely the same job order (recognition ahead of inference) and EEG recording was not included. All participants had been undergraduate students receiving course credit from the University of Colorado. All participants were informed concerning the procedure and gave their written consent ahead of participating. Supplies and Procedure--Each participant performed two computerized tasks equivalent to these in Experiment 1: a city/country recognition test 1st in addition to a population inference task second. Job order was not counterbalanced mainly because final results from Experiment 1 yielded no important effects of job order, and we wished to receive the purest measures of preexperimental memory as you possibly can through the recognition test. Prior to starting, every single participant completed an approximately 3-min practice session for each tasks, employing nonexperimental stimuli. For the recognition test, participants viewed the identical 100 U.S. cities, 100 nations, 10 fictional cities, and 10 fictional countries. Order of city and nation blocks was counterbalanced. Every trial began having a 2 s fixation cross (+), followed by a single randomly selected city name on the center with the screen. On the initially screen, participants had been instructed to indicate having a "yes"/"no" button press regardless of whether or not they recognized each and every city from before the experiment, just as was carried out in Experiment 1.